12 ms·

> People pay huge overhead to apple exactly because apple makes choices for them... That’s exactly why I use Apple products. I don’t have time to mess around w

• colinmhayes 6y ago
  I'm pretty unhappy as a consumer.
  • surfpel 6y ago
    A consumer can jailbreak their iPhone and install apps that way, or buy an Android phone. You have choices.
    • saagarjha 6y ago
      > A consumer can jailbreak their iPhone Apple would prefer that you don't, and tries as hard as it possibly can to make this impossible.
      • surfpel 6y ago
        > or buy an android
        • doublerabbit 6y ago
          Lesser of two evils. If anything this lawsuit should be both at both, Apple and Google. Both cripple your devices and both dump you in their walled garden. All applications should be universal as the same for game services like xbox live, psn and so.
          • surfpel 6y ago
            > cripple your devices and both dump you in their walled garden What? This certainly doesn’t cripple the devices, and I’m the one who purchased products I knew would only work with Apple. That’s consumer choice.
    • munk-a 6y ago
      If a consumer does this they waive the right to all sorts of hardware warranties. Essentially, if they jailbreak their phone, Apple no longer recognizes it as an Apple Device so no, you don't effectively have a choice.
      • surfpel 6y ago
        > or buy an android
  • RonanTheGrey 6y ago
    I actually left Android for Apple because I can't stomach Google's hoovering up the entire world's data, but honestly I've gotten to the point that at least Google is the devil you know. I can do things on Android et al to control how much data Google gets about me. I can do nothing about Apple controlling how I am allowed to use my insanely expensive device. A few years ago it didn't matter so much. Apple's deal had its foibles, but recently they've gone full evil and I am seriously looking at my next device being Android and getting my entire family off Apple. The problem is that will bring with it months of "did I lose something?" and having to keep both phones around. I have resisted for a long time, it is not an easy process.
• janoc 6y ago
  The thing is, if Apple alienates developers enough/makes them go bankrupt, the only applications you will be able to use would be the first party Apple ones. That won't be a very enjoyable thing, would be? That's the entire problem. If a shopping mall was charging every store 30% of their revenue (not profit, revenue!), it would be very quickly going broke and empty. Yet Apple (and to a lesser degree Google, Facebook and a few others) is getting away with this - exactly because unlike the shopping mall, the developers don't have a choice. It is either play by Apple rules - or be excluded from a very sizeable part of the mobile market. When Microsoft was playing dirty and abusing its market dominance to put a squeeze on companies trying to ship other than Microsoft's software, they got hammered in court pretty bad. The anti-monopoly/abuse of dominant market position laws are there for a reason, even if you, as a consumer, don't see it (yet).
  • surfpel 6y ago
    I try to use first party apps because they’re usually better. When I can, I stick to the browser app - which doesn’t have a 30%/15% commission. If I can’t AND I need to pay, I’ll pay 30%/15% extra if I need to.
    • dhagz 6y ago
      The thing is, you're not paying 30%/15% extra - if I recall correctly, that is against the terms of the App Store. Developers/companies can't charge a markup to make up for the bit Apple skims off the top - so instead of, say, Spotify getting all of my $10 from an IAP Premium subscription, they get $7. If I sign up for their premium service on their website, however, they get all $10.
      • kn0where 6y ago
        Not true, for instance YouTube Premium charges more for subscriptions through the App Store than if you subscribe on YouTube.com
        • RonanTheGrey 6y ago
• mike_d 6y ago
  I wish I could give comments gold on HN. My phone is the center of my life, and I genuinely appreciate that Apple does the work of vetting applications so I don't have to.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
• greggman3 6y ago
  nothing would stop you continueing to use apple's curated store just like many people choose to go to sanitized Blockbuster Video instead of sleazy corner video store. That didn't mean other stores needed to get prevented so that you could go to a store you trusted
• onion2k 6y ago
  That’s exactly why I use Apple products. I don’t have time to mess around with third party stores and risk security issues when I need an app that doesn’t want to be on the App Store. I’m ok with paying 30% more as a consumer for the simplicity and peace of mind. That's great. You should have that choice. But it should be a choice. The issue is that Apple block apps that tell users that there's a non-Apple tax alternative. They should not be able to do that. Removing apps that inform the customer about alternatives to in-app purchases is clearly anti-competitive. The screen that offers the alternative would have absolutely no impact on you or your choice. It would have a huge impact on people who are less able to afford the higher Apple in-app-tax-burdened price.
  • spideymans 6y ago
    >That's great. You should have that choice. But it should be a choice. The choice is Android - the platform used by some 80 percent of software users. I don't see the argument for regulatory actions, when consumers can (and do) easily choose to use other mobile platforms, if they don't like the terms of the iOS App Store. If consumers want to be in the walled garden, great, they should be free to make that decision. If they don't want the walled garden, then great, they're free to pick other platforms. I don't see why the government should force this option upon consumers. This situation isn't like Microsoft Windows in the 90s, where consumers effectively had no choice but to use Windows.
    • nathankunicki 6y ago
      Consumers have the choice, but developers don't. Its been proven countless times over the years that Android users are much less likely to pay for applications than iOS users. As a developer, if you want to survive and make money from your application, you need to be on iOS, as Android is worthless in this regard. And so, Apple gets 30% of your in app purchase revenue, while providing little value other than being a payment processor, for which the normal charge is less than 2.5%.
      • spideymans 6y ago
        >Consumers have the choice, but developers don't. Its been proven countless times over the years that Android users are much less likely to pay for applications than iOS users. Why should it be Apple's problem that Google can't monetize their dominant market share?
• CamperBob2 6y ago
  Don't like third-party app stores? Don't use them. It would be nice if you had that option, wouldn't it?
  • joemi 6y ago
    Can't the same argument just be applied to the phone itself, though? Don't like phones that don't allow third-party app stores? Don't use them. Buy android instead.
    • CamperBob2 6y ago
      It could, but how do we as consumers benefit from allowing dominant vendors to tie completely unrelated aspects of functionality together? Security and utility are not terms in a zero-sum equation.
• jmvoodoo 6y ago
  Yes, but in this case Epic gave this decision to the customer. They could pay more and use Apple's payment rails. Apple killed it, which is what Epic needed to prove consumer harm. This is going to be a very interesting case.
  • mirthflat83 6y ago
    You seriously think Epic will magically cut down the price of their fake digital items by 30% once Apple gives them up? No, they're going to go straight into their pocket.
    • jmvoodoo 6y ago
      That's exactly what they did though[0]. They offered a 20% discount if you use the Epic payment system on iOS, and continued to offer items at the normal price through Apple's payment system. This is what got them kicked off of the app store. 0. https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/the-fortnite-mega-drop-permanent-discounts-up-to-20-percent https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/the-fortnite-m...
      • sosborn 6y ago
        I really have to marvel at how well planned this whole series of events is. This wasn't some knee jerk move by Epic, it is calculated and very well executed.
• nathankunicki 6y ago
  But you don't pay 30% more - if it was the case that devs were allowed to make the iOS in app purchases 30% more than the counterparts, that would be fine (well, not fine, but at least it would give the people options). Apple has blocked stores from doing so in the past, demanding that the iOS price be the same as outside iOS, effectively taking 30% of developers revenue when bought through the app store.
  • anticensor 6y ago
    Do you know any examples that app developer has entered into a deal with Apple to pay that 30% cut even for sales outside iOS or MacOS platforms?
    • nathankunicki 6y ago
      No, but I don't understand the relevance, much less why a developer would do that (or why Apple would ask for it)? Of course a developer could just raise prices elsewhere to make the cost equal to that on iOS if they raised the price to include Apple's 30% cut, but the problem would remain.
      • anticensor 6y ago
        A developer might voluntarily request that to make the payment infrastructure simpler by making the payment routing equal for everyone.
  • RonanTheGrey 6y ago
    And now they've taken that one step further and insist that if you accept payment anywhere outside of iOS, you are forced to accept payment on device as well, in order for Apple to get access to your market. For things like games where you're buying "5 more rings" or a "hat for your virtual pet" ok fine -- but for something where you're offering a subscription service to physical therapists where their subscription buys them things in the real world, this is completely unreasonable. We were forced to "include" this functionality in the app or Apple threatened to remove it, so we did and just made it impossible to find.
• FireBeyond 6y ago
  Evidently customers DO care. Or are you suggesting that the bulk of those customers paid $9.99 for the same items that they could have paid $7.99 for - inside the same app - just to thank Apple for their 'peace of mind'?? Epic gave the customer a choice. If the evidence doesn't show that the majority of customers still chose the $9.99 option, that's certainly bolstering their claim that Apple's decision to remove the ability to do so is harmful to consumers, not (just) developers.
  • makomk 6y ago
    That's the really, deeply cynical part of all this - in a world where Epic could use their own payment processing without Apple taking a cut, all their customers would be paying the full $9.99, not $7.99. It doesn't require much of a crystal ball at all to realize this, because it was the reality right up until the very instant that Epic Games needed to push the idea that Apple's cut was actually costing consumers money rather than them as part of this lawsuit and PR campaign. $9.99 everywhere, on PC direct from Epic, on consoles (which take a similar cut), Android, iOS, everywhere. The extra went straight into Epic Games' pockets.
    • FireBeyond 6y ago
      Certainly. But I don't think there's anything inherently immoral to that. Market value of item is X - that's what the customer will be paying. There's more value, theoretically, to the customer, in paying that to the producer directly - more income for them, more incentive to continue producing or improving. Similar for the producer, more revenue. No-one gains value out of rent-seeking middlemen but rent-seeking middlemen. Note: I am not saying the Apple Store doesn't not add value in terms of payment processing, exposure, bandwidth, and so on. But I will argue strongly that you'll have a hard time showing that this added value is _worth_ that thirty percent cut. I also highly doubt that should it be three percent (as indeed it is on the MAS!), this lawsuit, these arguments, would not be being had.
• ac29 6y ago
  > 30% more 1/0.7 = 1.43 You're not paying 30% more, you're paying 43% more. Maybe you're fine with paying even more than that, but lets keep the math clear.
  • surfpel 6y ago
    1/0.85 => 17% more. If we’re gonna nitpick, let’s not ignore that it’s 15% after a year.
• R0b0t1 6y ago
  It's against the Apple ToS to charge more on their app store.
• rpdillon 6y ago
  I guess I don't quite get this argument. Allowing users to install a third-party app store on a device they purchased doesn't impact another user's ability to use Apple's walled garden exclusively. As a customer, it's frustrating because I have to choose between Google's crazy surveillance and Apple's authoritarian regime. I'd really like to just buy a device and then do what I want with it, because I bought it. For example, if Apple were to allow me to install the equivalent of F-Droid on iOS, I would feel pretty differently about them as a company.